More Prop. 50 Redistricting Contributions and Expenditures and $31M to Consultants

The Daily Caller is reporting that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s redistricting map guru employs man who got $31 million to fight Prop 50. They report that California’s redistricting map author, Paul Mitchell, told lawyers during a deposition that he was paid a total of $325,000 for his services redrawing the maps, with an estimated $108,000 coming from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee DCCC, which public payment records corroborate, showing Mitchell’s firm, Redistricting Partners, paid $108,333.33 on Aug. 20, with additional payments collected later.

The Daily Caller continues:

Mitchell also told lawyers DCCC sent its payment to his accountant Ken Andres, who also appears to be the chief financial officer of a political consulting firm that aided efforts opposing Proposition 50.

According to state records, one of the leading PACs, Protect Voters First, paid more than $30 million to Meridian Pacific Inc., doing business as Swing Strategies.

The first payments to the firm began Aug. 19, with five transactions made that day. One payment totaled $3,661,523.07, a second $5,600,124.12, a third $90,000, a fourth $55,000 and a final payment for that day of $5,000.

When asked about Andres serving as the bookkeeper for both Swing Strategies and Redistricting Partners, Mitchell confirmed the arrangement, adding that Swing Strategies “was the no campaign.”

“Small world,” Mitchell said.

The Globe found late reporting records with the California Secretary of State:

The California Secretary of State posted the final contributions to ACA 8, Proposition 50, Dec. 31st, on November’s ballot authorizing mid-decade redistricting, adding up to a whopping $159,013,590.30. Perhaps more notable is the spending – the expenditures made on Prop. 50: $101,963,444,20.

Late Contributions Received according to the California Secretary of State in the YES on Prop. 50 campaign:

As the Globe reported shortly after passage of Prop. 50 in November:

The SoCal Daily Pulse initially reported that former California GOP Chairwoman Jessica Patterson allegedly was paid $500,000 by the NO on Prop. 50 campaign. The article was then swiftly taken down from the website, however sources had already saved it and provided it to the Globe.

The Daily Caller notes our reporting and adds to it:

Speculations over the efforts from the state’s GOP and the “No” campaign was brought into question following the passing of Prop 50. At the height of the fight McCarthy reportedly pledged to fellow party members he would help raise up to $100 million to help defeat the “Yes” campaign. However, his PAC, No on 50: Stop the Sacramento Power Grab, only raised $11.6 million, with $1 million coming from the former House Speaker’s defunct congressional campaign account, according to Cal Matters.

A report from the SoCal Daily Pulse, which has since been taken down, initially alleged Patterson “personally steered” media contracts to have the “No” PACs work with Swing Strategies. The arrangement to work with the company allegedly had her negotiate a 1% cut of the total ad buy spend for herself, which would have her potentially profiting roughly $310,000 from the estimated $31 million. The total from the alleged cut and payment from the committee potentially puts Patterson at almost $1 million in compensation for efforts that failed Republicans in the state.

The efforts made by Swing Strategies were also called into question as donors allegedly expressed their concerns regarding the quality of the mailers used for the “No” campaign. Voters reportedly also received “No” campaign mailers after Election Day, with some allegedly receiving as many as three in one day, the California Globe reported.

California voters have every right to feel ripped off. Once again, only the consultants won, and they won big.

As Ed Ring wrote this week for the Globe, Republicans are lacking a set of unifying mantras so how will they mobilize the armies that Democrats routinely muster to register voters, walk precincts, and harvest ballots?

“They have failed to come up with a message of hope and a unified set of policy proposals that will solve the issues where Democrats have no answer and keep on just making everything worse. With such glaring deficiencies in Democrat policies, Republicans must come up with a message and platform that presents a clear and attractive alternative. But they haven’t even come up with a message powerful enough to attract their own grassroots base. That is inexcusable. Republicans can disagree internally over how much priority to assign social issues, or how these issues should be addressed, but meanwhile there is an entire preexisting world of agreement among Republicans on issues of compelling relevance and enormous scope.

“Which brings us to the recent debacle called Republican opposition to Prop. 50. The major donors who spent millions in a futile attempt to head off passage must know the model is broken. So why did they spend all that money? And the political professionals who took that money and used it to buy television ads must also have known it was going to be a colossal waste of money. Is that the best our political professionals can do? Accept the ecosystem as it is, knowing that using the same tactics will fail, but pretend they won’t fail so donors don’t balk, then count on friends to get another next job on the next cycle? Is that what happened?

What needs to happen is a reconciliation.”

Indeed. Republican voters are disgusted with losing races while Republican political consultants are paid handsomely – for losing. Nowhere else in the private sector do losers win this big. This should cause all of us to question who these hucksters are and why we are tolerating this.

Ed Ring continues:

“California’s grassroots and the donor/consultant class need to identify common ground, and the motivation and means to do this is best coming from donors who are tired of squandering their money. Donors and grassroots need to unite on a platform that will attract a majority of voters in the state, and there is plenty of material to work with.”

We never want to see a repeat of Proposition 50 again.